I would agree if it weren't for the baggage that gets attached to the "senior" and "junior" titles. I'll admit to having my own -- otherwise I wouldn't be here

I would agree if it weren't for the baggage that gets attached to the "senior" and "junior" titles. I'll admit to having my own -- otherwise I wouldn't be here arguing about it, haha. Mostly I feel that "senior" is more likely to trigger overconfidence and "tin god" personas; conversely "junior" is a classification I feel people tend to be too much in a hurry to shed. These are obviously traits of the people exhibiting the behavior, and not the fault of the terms themselves, however it is not inappropriate to take human nature into account. Accordingly I am wary when the title is tossed around lightly. In general I do agree that titles are mostly arbitrary and useful just as an org-specific shorthand for the responsibilities and achievements implied. Thanks for sharing your org's criteria, it's nice to hear about places that base evaluations on how happy both peers and stakeholders are.